Sorry, I should make a better comment than "I'm not sure one card to incentivize them would be bad".

I'm actually not sure about whether it's bad or not.There are many, many cards in Dominion that incentivize strategies that are not monocard; Holunder9, you mentioned Nocturne; Cornucopia is the other obvious example, but also the entire concept of Remodelers push towards a diverse deck. On the other hand, except maybe Journey token cards, there don't seem to be any cards that explicitly incentivize multiple copies of the same card. Is that because it's a mechanic that DXV has not used yet, or is it because it's a mechanic that he looked at and decided was bad for the game?

In either case I'm happy with it, especially given that it has some specifically limiting behavior, like preventing groups of King's Courts that you set aside from playing each other, so it's not just a card that lets you build insane combos and pull them off effortlessly. It *is* a card that lets you play 4 Smithies without spending more than 1 Action, if you're able to take the time to set that up.

Wording is a bit of a concern, as matching cards could mean any cards at all that are the same, vs cards that have the same name as the card you named. "Matches" appears on one card, Doctor, whereas all other "Name a card" cards use something like "named card". Also "were set aside with Memorial" is sort of ambiguous. I mean "were ever set aside with Memorial" but people might think "were set aside with Memorial this turn". But that's what the rulebook is for.

I'm actually not sure about whether it's bad or not.There are many, many cards in Dominion that incentivize strategies that are not monocard; Holunder9, you mentioned Nocturne; Cornucopia is the other obvious example, but also the entire concept of Remodelers push towards a diverse deck. On the other hand, except maybe Journey token cards, there don't seem to be any cards that explicitly incentivize multiple copies of the same card. Is that because it's a mechanic that DXV has not used yet, or is it because it's a mechanic that he looked at and decided was bad for the game?

*cough* Cultist *cough*

Logged

Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

I'm actually not sure about whether it's bad or not.There are many, many cards in Dominion that incentivize strategies that are not monocard; Holunder9, you mentioned Nocturne; Cornucopia is the other obvious example, but also the entire concept of Remodelers push towards a diverse deck. On the other hand, except maybe Journey token cards, there don't seem to be any cards that explicitly incentivize multiple copies of the same card. Is that because it's a mechanic that DXV has not used yet, or is it because it's a mechanic that he looked at and decided was bad for the game?

This is great feedback! It tells me that there's some vagueness that I need to overcome.

I don't know if it's a good idea to clarify here though; maybe I should refine the card. On the flip side I could also write up the rulebook excerpt and post it and you could tell me if you understand it now. If you don't, something needs to get more clear.

Many of the set's players (if I'm egotistical enough to assume that there will be any) won't have the benefit of me sitting across from them saying, no, do it this way.

On the other hand, except maybe Journey token cards, there don't seem to be any cards that explicitly incentivize multiple copies of the same card. Is that because it's a mechanic that DXV has not used yet, or is it because it's a mechanic that he looked at and decided was bad for the game?

Something that happens quite commonly in games of Dominion is that there are multiple Kingdom cards that are simply irrelevant to the strategy of the Kingdom. It makes sense that this would happen, since a deck with more copies of card-A is more likely to draw card-A when it needs it (Magic: The Gathering notably limits the number of copies of non-basic Lands you can put into your Library precisely because a smaller deck with more copies of ideal cards is preferred to a larger deck of merely good cards). Since this deck construction rule-of-thumb exists, Kingdom cards should endeavor to incentivize breaking said rule, since the rule will exist whether we try to instill it or not. Consider how many beginning players will mock shock at the play of a useful\valuable card that you, of course, have three-to-five copies in your deck so that you are certain to be able to play it each turn.

With all this theory in mind, there do exist cards that primarily incentivize pile-driving: Alchemist, Cultist, Governor, and Minion jump to mind immediately, while the Adventures Tokens seen in Lost Arts, Pathfinding, Plan, and Training also encourage gaining many of a singular cheap, spammable Action.

One should consider with great trepidation whether or not to create a card that combos explicitly (or implicitly) with itself (and I think doubly-so if it costs less than $5, as $5 cards are at least expensive enough to already require another plan), and should almost certainly explore any fashion in which the idea can be more Kingdom dependent. The more mono-card strategies that exist, the greater the chance that a Kingdom devolves into a race for a single pile. Designers should work to minimize such an un-fun game state.

One should consider with great trepidation whether or not to create a card that combos explicitly (or implicitly) with itself (and I think doubly-so if it costs less than $5, as $5 cards are at least expensive enough to already require another plan), and should almost certainly explore any fashion in which the idea can be more Kingdom dependent. The more mono-card strategies that exist, the greater the chance that a Kingdom devolves into a race for a single pile. Designers should work to minimize such an un-fun game state.

Yes, this was my thinking. I think this is okay because the card doesn't combo explicitly with itself per se, rather allowing other terminals to chain with themselves, costs $6, and suspends cards outside of your hand, which prevents them from playing each other (i.e., setting aside 4 King's Courts and then playing them with Memorial will prevent them from playing each other -- they need to target other cards in your hand.)

Fly-Eagles-Fly, I don't think it's QUITE a solution for me to say "I'll post the rulebook snippet", since it wouldn't be right to make a card with gibberish and a rulebook entry to explain how to use it in a different way. What do you think the card is support to do?

The short version is, after drawing 2 cards, either play all of the copies of a single Action from your hand, or set them aside. Then, play any number of the same Action that were set aside (including ones set aside from this Memorials, or from previous Memorials, whether on this turn or previous turns).

So, example one, my hand is 2 smithies, 1 Memorial, some other cards; I play Memorial, I name Smithy, I play Smithy + Smithy.Example two, my hand is 2 smithies, 1 Memorial, etc; I play Memorial, I name Smithy, I set the Smithies aside. A few turns later, my hand is junk and Memorial, I play Memorial, I name Smithy, I play those two Smithies I set aside last time.Example three is the same, except I have two Smithies set aside and two in my hand. I play Memorial, I name Smithy, I play 4 Smithies!

There's some extra complications, in that, you have to play or set aside all of the copies, you can't have 3 Smithies and then play one and set aside two. It's all or nothing. Likewise, if you choose to play Smithies from being set aside, you have to play all of them. You can't keep some set aside and play a few.Additionally, you can have multiple different piles of set aside cards; you could set 3 Smithies aside, and 2 Native Villages, and 2 Witches. But you can only name one card for BOTH setting aside and playing, so each Memorial will only access one set of "Memories."Also as I mentioned before, the cards you set aside aren't in your hand, so they don't have as much ability to interact with each other.

As you work on an expack like this, whenever you think you're done, your subconscious points out a card as being the worst card. So you put some work into it. Then your brain taps you on the shoulder and says, 'that card, there? that's the worst card in the set." It was Sarcophagus. Before that, it was Boulder Trap. Before that, it was Shipwreck or Gamepiece, I forget. Now it's Snake Charmer.

Here's the current Snake Charmer:

Quote

Current Snake Charmer - Action-Attack - $4+1 Action+$1You may trash a card from your hand. If you've trashed 2 or more cards this turn, +$3.Each other player may trash a card costing $2 or more from their hand. If they don't they gain a Curse.

This has three problems. One, even though it really isn't a Priest clone, it sort of feels like a Priest clone. Two, the attack sort of feels like Villain even though, again, it's different. Ish.Third, the clause about "if you've trashed 2 or more cards this turn" is rather awkward. Do you get this if you didn't trash a card this time? Yes, you do, so basically this is $4 with no trashing if you have trashed 2 cards already, if you want it that way. Plus it's hard to track if you bounce between trashing and not trashing.

Each other player may trash a card from their hand. If they didn't trash an Action or Victory card, they gain a Curse to the bottom of their deck.

This solves all of the things. Sort of. Also, it's a third card referencing the bottom of your deck! Because it can, and it's sort of like poison, kills you later. It's a hard counter for Pearl Diver, because Pearl Diver really could use being worse /s. If you don't cycle your deck fast enough, Curses on the bottom of your deck can pile up.

The two top halves are not equivalent, but this one is closer to how I wanted the card to work in the first place.

I made a last-minute (a dangerous idea, I know) revision to Snake Charmer:

Quote

Snake Charmer - Action-Attack - $4+1 ActionIf you've trashed a card this turn, $4. Otherwise, +$1 and you may trash a card from your hand.Each other player may trash a card from their hand. If they didn't trash an Action or Victory card, they gain a Curse to the bottom of their deck.

At some point I'll make a new thread that's, you know, more officially launched looking.

Very good and official looking. Can you still make changes, or is this completely final? I just think it might look better with a background, even if it's just a simple blue instead of the weird design official ones have.

Logged

Is anyone here also on the Chess.com Variants forum? This is the same FEF.

At some point I'll make a new thread that's, you know, more officially launched looking.

Very good and official looking. Can you still make changes, or is this completely final? I just think it might look better with a background, even if it's just a simple blue instead of the weird design official ones have.

I don't know that I have any control over the background, unfortunately.